Forum:Chronology vs. release
Organization by release date is a perfectly okay substitute if there either is an overarching timeline of the series that's not actually been released to the public (such as the Mario series) or if the series in question wasn't intended to even have a timeline to begin with (ie, several of the Looney Tunes shorts). However, in the long run in regards to timelines, it's not really that reliable, so I'm more in favor of the chronological approach. However, if the majority want to keep it at release order... well, there's not much I can do to prevent it, anyways. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 20:54, December 26, 2011 (UTC) :I do have a pretty good idea of how to handle that part: Namely, we subdivide the history/biography section up to four sections or less. The first section pertains to every game and/or event officially confirmed to take place before Ocarina of Time (ie, Skyward Sword; Minish Cap, and Four Swords in terms of games). The second section pertains to the timeline branch where Link loses to Ganondorf in Ocarina of Time (Called Timeline A for convenience's sake, which includes the events of the Imprisoning War, Shipwrecked, the Tragedy of Princess Zelda, and the events of A Link to the Past, the Oracle subseries, Link's Awakening, the first Legend of Zelda, and the Adventure of Link). The third section pertains to the Child timeline (likewise called Timeline B, which contains the events of Ganondorf's arrest and subsequent execution, as well as the games of Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess, and Four Swords Adventures). The fourth and last timeline would be the Adult timeline where Link succeeds in defeating Ganon (called Timeline C, which contains the events of the Great Flood, and the events of The Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks). Note that the subheadings are pertained only to those who are directly afflicted with the split timeline (ie, the characters in question appear in more than one timeline), so one-shot characters or Vaati (who hasn't appeared in any timeline other than Timeline B) will of course be exempted from this design. This method also works in effectively applying events that technically are not demonstrated in the games themselves (eg, events that are mentioned by characters or supplementary materials only and aren't actually playable such as the Imprisoning War or the Great Flood) and separating them from events that are directly relating to the game being played (as in, the events that you actually play through in the game, such as the Endless Day in Oracle of Ages, or heck, the plot of the games that you play through). Weedle McHairybug (talk) 21:34, December 26, 2011 (UTC) If the games were truly independent of one another and did not have an overall story, it would have been done in a very similar manner to the Final Fantasy series, where all of its "sequels" were completely divorced from the previous and/or next game. Since there are several instances of at least two games being dependent on one another (eg, Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker, with Wind Waker directly referencing Ocarina of Time in both the prologue and in certain instances in the main game itself), constant references to a timeline, and the Hyrule Historia, then like it or not, it really does have to be done in chronological order now. Another thing, many many fans also are unaware of the split timeline theory, or heck, even the Multiple Ganon Theory, yet that didn't stop them from getting articles. Now, the appearances of minor items that really don't have any implications of being the same item can retain the appearances section, but any characters and/or key items will have to be done in chronological style. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 00:30, December 27, 2011 (UTC) :As I've said, I'm neutral on the issue, but I have to say that I'm not liking your attitude. We don't "have" to do anything. This is still an open discussion. You've stated your view and given your reasoning. That should be enough. Xykeb Yvolix '' '' 00:41, December 27, 2011 (UTC) :My apologies, I'll withdraw. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 00:45, December 27, 2011 (UTC) I also very strongly recommend we keep the current release order system. Though there is an official full timeline now, it is barely ever relevant or at all helpful to look at a page's subject in that light. Each story is entirely self contained, with the exception of very few things, like Ganondorf, the Seven Sages and their seal, etc.. A single incarnation of an item/character/location very rarely appears in more than one game, and almost nothing appears in more than two. For example, it's useless to lump MC Zelda and OoT Zelda together because they have nothing in common that they don't share with every other Zelda. Not only does a timeline format gain nothing for the vast majority of pages, but people looking for info about the character/location/item from a particular game would be utterly lost without game-based sections (how do you explain the mechanics of the Bow in a Child Timeline section that consists of three totally different games?). Even if you kept game based sections but arranged them in timeline order, the vast majority of pages would still have no benefit for the reasons I've stated, and these pages would become EXTREMELY confusing to the many people who do not know the timeline order. Additionally, release order is not only straightforward and well known, but it has been and forever shall be the same. Official timeline order has been changed in the past, and it could get changed again. They knowingly screwed up the then-confirmed OoT/ALttP connection with WW, and later fixed it with a very nonsensical third timeline split. In fact, now that they've announced a full timeline, it's extremely likely that they'll find themselves stepping on their own feet again. They've always said that individual game stories come first, and the overall timeline consistency is secondary. We too should keep the games referred to first as individual games, and as pieces of a timeline only secondarily. However, the history of things which ARE directly affected by timeline connections, such as the Triforce and Ganon(dorf), is a somewhat convoluted subject which is sure to be of interest to those of our readers who actually have seen the timeline. I recommend that in addition to game sections, these articles should be given a new chronology section. This section would go over all the timeline branches and summarize what happens to the thing in each of them. I think this could easily be accomplished in one paragraph per timeline segment (prequel/adult/child/dead Link). All our pages' formats would remain in the user-friendly game/release order sections, with the timeline specific information being neatly listed in its own section for the pages that need it. Just off the top of my head, only a few pages would need a chronology section: Ganon/Ganondorf, Triforce, Sacred Realm/Dark World, Seven Sages/Seal of the Sages/possibly Ancient Sages, Hyrule/New Hyrule, and maybe the Master Sword and Four Sword. All the other recurring Links/Zeldas/Magic Items/etc. appear in only two games if I'm not mistaken, a connection which I think can be easily explained in the relevant game sections, just like we've always done on this wiki. All 4,500+ other pages I didn't list could remain in their current format, which I strongly believe to be a vastly superior format for getting across the information they contain. No offense to anyone in favor of timeline based organization, I want to include timeline explanations also, but the VAST majority of Zelda information is entirely non-timeline related. First and foremost, our format needs to be designed to convey all that non-timeline information, which is best organized by game/release order.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 05:13, December 27, 2011 (UTC)